With an old RVS4000 as an internet gateway and a second RVS4000 behind it, it was possible to establish an ipv4 VPN tunnel from each router to one at a similarly configured site, with the second VPN running through the first one. While this is not a recommended configuration, there were unusual requirements for doing it that way.
When I try this now, replacing only the gateway routers with RV340's, and RVS4000 routers behind them, both VPN tunnels do come up without error. The tunnel between the RV340 routers works as expected. But while the RVS4000 tunnel is up, it won't carry any packets, not even ping.
What difference(s) between the RVS4000 and the RV340 would cause this behavior? ACL rules for ESP, AH, IPSEC, ISAKMP? IGMP proxy? NAT-T? Note this happens even when the RV340 temporarily disables Application Control and other advanced security features.
Change in ASD Automatic Software Download Feature
Dec 13th, 2019
Cisco RV160, 260, 340, and 345 Series Routers
Due to an API change in Cisco’s software download platform the Automatic Download Feature (ASD) on RV series routers will be temporarily ...
SFP Module Support List for RV160x and RV260x Devices
Small form-factor pluggable (SFP) ports are included on the RV160 and 260 routers to allow the use of optical SFP transceiver modules. SFP’s convert the optical signals to electrical signals. SFP’s al...
Welcome and thanks for visiting the Small Business Community Newsletter. This is our first of what we will make a monthly newsletter where you will be provided information on New products and trends, What’s ...
Hello @All ,
I am Bhuvi Chopra, a product manager on the Cisco Business (formerly SBTG) Team.
Cisco Business is excited to offer its San Jose customers a unique opportunity to join us at Cisco headquarters for a design thinki...